skip to main content
Idioma:

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Meza, Rafael ; Jeon, Jihyoun ; Toumazis, Iakovos ; ten Haaf, Kevin ; Cao, Pianpian ; Bastani, Mehrad ; Han, Summer S ; Blom, Erik F ; Jonas, Daniel E ; Feuer, Eric J ; Plevritis, Sylvia K ; de Koning, Harry J ; Kong, Chung Yin

JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2021-03, Vol.325 (10), p.988-997 [Periódico revisado por pares]

United States: American Medical Association

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force
  • Autor: Meza, Rafael ; Jeon, Jihyoun ; Toumazis, Iakovos ; ten Haaf, Kevin ; Cao, Pianpian ; Bastani, Mehrad ; Han, Summer S ; Blom, Erik F ; Jonas, Daniel E ; Feuer, Eric J ; Plevritis, Sylvia K ; de Koning, Harry J ; Kong, Chung Yin
  • Assuntos: Aged ; Cancer ; Cancer screening ; Computed tomography ; Criteria ; CT imaging ; Diagnosis ; Early Detection of Cancer - adverse effects ; Early Detection of Cancer - standards ; Exposure ; Fatalities ; Guidelines ; Health risks ; Humans ; Lung - diagnostic imaging ; Lung cancer ; Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Lung Neoplasms - mortality ; Lung Neoplasms - prevention & control ; Medical screening ; Middle Aged ; Minority & ethnic groups ; Modelling ; Models, Theoretical ; Oncology, Experimental ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Prediction models ; Radiation ; Risk analysis ; Risk Assessment ; Risk factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Smoking ; Smoking Cessation ; Task forces ; Tomography ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - adverse effects ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods
  • É parte de: JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2021-03, Vol.325 (10), p.988-997
  • Notas: ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    content type line 23
    Drafting of the manuscript: Meza, Jeon.
    Statistical analysis and model comparisons: Jeon, Cao, Meza.
    Author Contributions: Drs Meza and Jeon had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
    Model simulations: ten Haaf, Cao, Bastani, Kong.
    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
    Additional Contributions: We gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this project, including AHRQ staff (Howard Tracer, MD, and Tracy Wolff, MD, MPH), University of Michigan staff (Sheila Terrones, MA), and RTI International–University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill EPC staff (Carol Woodell, BSPH; Sharon Barrell, MA; and Loraine Monroe). The USPSTF members, expert consultants, peer reviewers, and Federal reviewers did not receive financial compensation for their contributions. Ms Terrones, Ms Woodell, Ms Barrell, and Ms Monroe received compensation for their role in this project.
    Obtained funding: Meza, Plevritis, de Koning, Kong.
    Equal contribution
    Concept and design: All authors.
  • Descrição: IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. OBJECTIVE: To inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Comparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years. EXPOSURES: Screening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor–based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model–based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms). RESULTS: Efficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor–based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF–recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF–recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model–based vs risk factor–based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Microsimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF–recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.
  • Editor: United States: American Medical Association
  • Idioma: Inglês
Links
Voltar para lista de resultados
Ir para página anteriorAnterior Resultado  10 AvançarIr para próxima página

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.